7 ms·

I look towards our closest relatives, Chimpanzees, at least one subspecies of which carries out organized troupe-based raids that echo much of what we see in hu

by s_q_b 11y ago

I look towards our closest relatives, Chimpanzees, at least one subspecies of which carries out organized troupe-based raids that echo much of what we see in human warfare. Troupes of young males patrol the perimeter of a territory by night, and periodically raid neighboring groups, killing adult males, seizing females, killing male offspring, and conquering their territory. I have a hard time believing that warfare is a pure invention, given its (near) universality across space, time, and our most closely related genetic relatives.

danielharan 11y ago
So, you're assuming Chimpanzees are acting on instinct, rather than culture?
- verbin217 11y ago
  This is the fundamental distinction every other comment here is missing.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    Chimps have culture. The question is why have the chimps with a culture of war been so successful?
- dunmalg 11y ago
  The reason chimpanzees are indicative of an inherent propensity towards warfare rather than it being a learned culture trait is that chimps do not have an observed unified learned culture. Their habitat ranges from Guinea on the west coast to Uganda, and the bahavior is observed in chimp communities that have no contact with each other.
hitekker 11y ago
Ditto. Ants have also practiced warfare against one another, for perhaps a longer time than any other species: http://www.wired.com/2010/08/gallery-ant-warfare/ http://www.wired.com/2010/08/gallery-ant-warfare/ (Sorry for the wired link, I couldn't find the original primary source I read concerning the subject) On a side note: I feel like the title crosses "not too or interesting", goes past "interesting or revolutionary!", and somehow winds up in "just plain wrong/easily dismissible". His subtitle makes it even worse: "Many evolutionists believe that humans have a drive for waging war. But they are wrong and the idea is dangerous." Less an attempt to persuade, and more like preaching to the choir, who ever that maybe.
- mod 11y ago
  After the subtitle I had dismissed the article, quite frankly. Anyone who dismisses legions of scientists offhand is going to have a hard time convincing me.
pistle 11y ago
Bonobos are about as close and they are hedonistic little buggers. Judging by the internet, I have a hard time believing that sex is a pure invention, given its universality across space, time, and our most closely related genetic relatives. Human war is not some local territory thing though is it? It's far more complex, as are human social interactions. People love to make the war-chimp-humans-shrug connection, but aren't willing to make the sex-bonobo-human-wink connection?? There is a form of hipster-like love for the "authenticity" of humans as they were tens of thousands to millions of years ago. Just because we want to believe something is baked into our DNA doesn't mean that those tens of thousands to millions of years can be waved off so easily. Chimps have evolved over the same time as humans. That we don't party like chimps implies that this line of reasoning with zero "war-DNA" evidence is bogus. Show us the genes. Which part of the tiny % difference btw bonobos, humans, and chimps explains all of this?
- s_q_b 11y ago
  I can't speak to the DNA, as I don't believe that's established scientific knowledge yet, but there are a few details worth noting. Bonobos' reputation as make-love-not-war pacifists is quickly becoming undermined by recent research. They hunt for meat, go months without sex, and engage in (albeit more limited) intergroup conflict. Examining Pan paniscus and Pan troglodytes are like looking at exaggerated aspects of our own nature. But in looking at the behavior of humans, organized group warfare appears to be the norm, rather than the exception.
  - pistle 11y ago
    Organized group warfare? Do you mean bar fights or nation-states and insurgents? What proportion of humans take part in acts of organized group warfare? Saying war is natural to humans is to selectively ignore that the vast majority seem to prefer peace and/or don't have time for the war games. The decisions and designs of organized group warfare are in the hands of an extremely small few and they are constantly trying to balance the application of their wealth between keeping domestic subversion at bay while clumsily dumping bombs and bodies around the world to "preserve peace." War is not an undeniable urge, it's a choice. It's proven morally corrupt in most recent applications and this searching for some innate reasoning is an attempt to give hawks a way out of their cognitive dissonance. It's killing for duty, profit, and fun. You always have a choice.
brc 11y ago
Any human trait observed across cultures, time and languages must be considered a universal human trait in the same way all make dogs lift their legs to pee on things. The writings of Shakespeare are relevant today as the day they were written. That's because they cover the human traits of love, jealousy, war, gossip, pride and others. The reasons humans go to war is plainly evolutionary. Those ancestors that raided other tribes and stole their resources (and women) left successors who also had those traits. The peacenik human ancestors are all in the earth, never to be heard of again. That's not to say its hopeless - human traits can be tempered through society - such as limiting murder to that explicitly sanctioned, and introducing laws and concepts around monogamous marriage to prevent single ruling families introducing polygamy and dominating the genetic results. Those things promote peace and harmony but war will always be with us. I used to be a lot more starry eyed about this but I've come to realise how temporary and fleeting peace really is. The only societies that have really prospered are those that have established walls and dedicated resources to making sure they are effective. And I don't mean actual city walls - I mean barriers to conquest.
- coolsunglasses 11y ago
  Murder is not (supposed to be) explicitly sanctioned, only killing is. Murder as a word is supposed to designate specifically unsanctioned, immoral killing. We don't need another word for kill, we already have that word. Don't let murder steal kill's job!
bane 11y ago
Humans are also literally the apex hunter on the planet. We can successfully hunt and eat any other predator if we choose to. Even nearly perfectly evolved hunters like sharks, lions and tigers are merely food and decorative pelts to us. A right of passage for some human children to be considered adults is to track, hunt and kill other apex predators. Humans have no natural predators. Zero. Think about that. Anything that may have once threatened us, we've out organized, out planned, and out thought on the way towards global dominance. Even superficially similar co-inhabitant species like Neanderthal could not survive in a world with Humans. Today, only microscopic creatures threaten us, and we once again organize, plan and think about ways to defeat these creatures. Even with stone-aged levels of technology we spread to every corner of the world, in every known climate and ecology, in large numbers, and thrived. The only thing that is dangerous to humans is other humans. And we've even arrived at the point that, with no considerable effort at all, we're capable of wiping out every living thing that inhabits the surface of a world. Despite having poor biting power, diminished canines, running (poorly) on our heels, lower than average strength and no claws. We are the the most dangerous creature in the known universe.
- mckiddy 11y ago
  Thats true, but I just wanted to point out that humans are actually one of the best species on Earth at distance running http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2012/06/long_distance_running_and_evolution_why_humans_can_outrun_horses_but_can_t_jump_higher_than_cats_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2012/06/long...
  - malka 11y ago
    We are extremely good at throwing things with precision as well.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      Only those of us with a Y chromosome :P
    - bane 11y ago
andrewflnr 11y ago
War is a completely predictable consequence of (a) our intelligence, which recognizes (b) the existence of scarce resources and (c) the fact that violence is sometimes an effective strategy for obtaining them. Organizing into groups to do so is just matter of thinking about tactics for a second, especially since we're already pretty group-oriented. There's no reason that war shouldn't be constantly, independently re-invented.
- dmichulke 11y ago
  To be fair, there are also various counterarguments that a rational being should take into account before going to war: - The likelihood of being killed (IMO big these days, even as a non-combatant) - the likelihood of suffering from indirect negative consequences via redirection of economic output (IMO high) - the likelihood of warriors benefiting from the seized resources in a significant way (IMO small, unless you're also part of the ruling class) So, yes, I agree with your conclusion but there are additional premises at work.

by s_q_b 11y ago

danielharan 11y ago

So, you're assuming Chimpanzees are acting on instinct, rather than culture?

verbin217 11y ago
This is the fundamental distinction every other comment here is missing.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Chimps have culture. The question is why have the chimps with a culture of war been so successful?
dunmalg 11y ago
The reason chimpanzees are indicative of an inherent propensity towards warfare rather than it being a learned culture trait is that chimps do not have an observed unified learned culture. Their habitat ranges from Guinea on the west coast to Uganda, and the bahavior is observed in chimp communities that have no contact with each other.

hitekker 11y ago

Ditto. Ants have also practiced warfare against one another, for perhaps a longer time than any other species: http://www.wired.com/2010/08/gallery-ant-warfare/ http://www.wired.com/2010/08/gallery-ant-warfare/ (Sorry for the wired link, I couldn't find the original primary source I read concerning the subject) On a side note: I feel like the title crosses "not too or interesting", goes past "interesting or revolutionary!", and somehow winds up in "just plain wrong/easily dismissible". His subtitle makes it even worse: "Many evolutionists believe that humans have a drive for waging war. But they are wrong and the idea is dangerous." Less an attempt to persuade, and more like preaching to the choir, who ever that maybe.

mod 11y ago
After the subtitle I had dismissed the article, quite frankly. Anyone who dismisses legions of scientists offhand is going to have a hard time convincing me.

pistle 11y ago

Bonobos are about as close and they are hedonistic little buggers. Judging by the internet, I have a hard time believing that sex is a pure invention, given its universality across space, time, and our most closely related genetic relatives. Human war is not some local territory thing though is it? It's far more complex, as are human social interactions. People love to make the war-chimp-humans-shrug connection, but aren't willing to make the sex-bonobo-human-wink connection?? There is a form of hipster-like love for the "authenticity" of humans as they were tens of thousands to millions of years ago. Just because we want to believe something is baked into our DNA doesn't mean that those tens of thousands to millions of years can be waved off so easily. Chimps have evolved over the same time as humans. That we don't party like chimps implies that this line of reasoning with zero "war-DNA" evidence is bogus. Show us the genes. Which part of the tiny % difference btw bonobos, humans, and chimps explains all of this?

s_q_b 11y ago
I can't speak to the DNA, as I don't believe that's established scientific knowledge yet, but there are a few details worth noting. Bonobos' reputation as make-love-not-war pacifists is quickly becoming undermined by recent research. They hunt for meat, go months without sex, and engage in (albeit more limited) intergroup conflict. Examining Pan paniscus and Pan troglodytes are like looking at exaggerated aspects of our own nature. But in looking at the behavior of humans, organized group warfare appears to be the norm, rather than the exception.
- pistle 11y ago
  Organized group warfare? Do you mean bar fights or nation-states and insurgents? What proportion of humans take part in acts of organized group warfare? Saying war is natural to humans is to selectively ignore that the vast majority seem to prefer peace and/or don't have time for the war games. The decisions and designs of organized group warfare are in the hands of an extremely small few and they are constantly trying to balance the application of their wealth between keeping domestic subversion at bay while clumsily dumping bombs and bodies around the world to "preserve peace." War is not an undeniable urge, it's a choice. It's proven morally corrupt in most recent applications and this searching for some innate reasoning is an attempt to give hawks a way out of their cognitive dissonance. It's killing for duty, profit, and fun. You always have a choice.

brc 11y ago

Any human trait observed across cultures, time and languages must be considered a universal human trait in the same way all make dogs lift their legs to pee on things. The writings of Shakespeare are relevant today as the day they were written. That's because they cover the human traits of love, jealousy, war, gossip, pride and others. The reasons humans go to war is plainly evolutionary. Those ancestors that raided other tribes and stole their resources (and women) left successors who also had those traits. The peacenik human ancestors are all in the earth, never to be heard of again. That's not to say its hopeless - human traits can be tempered through society - such as limiting murder to that explicitly sanctioned, and introducing laws and concepts around monogamous marriage to prevent single ruling families introducing polygamy and dominating the genetic results. Those things promote peace and harmony but war will always be with us. I used to be a lot more starry eyed about this but I've come to realise how temporary and fleeting peace really is. The only societies that have really prospered are those that have established walls and dedicated resources to making sure they are effective. And I don't mean actual city walls - I mean barriers to conquest.

coolsunglasses 11y ago
Murder is not (supposed to be) explicitly sanctioned, only killing is. Murder as a word is supposed to designate specifically unsanctioned, immoral killing. We don't need another word for kill, we already have that word. Don't let murder steal kill's job!

bane 11y ago

Humans are also literally the apex hunter on the planet. We can successfully hunt and eat any other predator if we choose to. Even nearly perfectly evolved hunters like sharks, lions and tigers are merely food and decorative pelts to us. A right of passage for some human children to be considered adults is to track, hunt and kill other apex predators. Humans have no natural predators. Zero. Think about that. Anything that may have once threatened us, we've out organized, out planned, and out thought on the way towards global dominance. Even superficially similar co-inhabitant species like Neanderthal could not survive in a world with Humans. Today, only microscopic creatures threaten us, and we once again organize, plan and think about ways to defeat these creatures. Even with stone-aged levels of technology we spread to every corner of the world, in every known climate and ecology, in large numbers, and thrived. The only thing that is dangerous to humans is other humans. And we've even arrived at the point that, with no considerable effort at all, we're capable of wiping out every living thing that inhabits the surface of a world. Despite having poor biting power, diminished canines, running (poorly) on our heels, lower than average strength and no claws. We are the the most dangerous creature in the known universe.

mckiddy 11y ago
Thats true, but I just wanted to point out that humans are actually one of the best species on Earth at distance running http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2012/06/long_distance_running_and_evolution_why_humans_can_outrun_horses_but_can_t_jump_higher_than_cats_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2012/06/long...
- malka 11y ago
  We are extremely good at throwing things with precision as well.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    Only those of us with a Y chromosome :P
  - bane 11y ago

andrewflnr 11y ago

War is a completely predictable consequence of (a) our intelligence, which recognizes (b) the existence of scarce resources and (c) the fact that violence is sometimes an effective strategy for obtaining them. Organizing into groups to do so is just matter of thinking about tactics for a second, especially since we're already pretty group-oriented. There's no reason that war shouldn't be constantly, independently re-invented.

dmichulke 11y ago
To be fair, there are also various counterarguments that a rational being should take into account before going to war: - The likelihood of being killed (IMO big these days, even as a non-combatant) - the likelihood of suffering from indirect negative consequences via redirection of economic output (IMO high) - the likelihood of warriors benefiting from the seized resources in a significant way (IMO small, unless you're also part of the ruling class) So, yes, I agree with your conclusion but there are additional premises at work.